Holmes v. Evans’s Empirical Analysis
1873
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently November 1948
1 federal appellate · 14 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Parkhurst v. Van Cortlandt · Barickman v. Kuykendall · McGuire v. Stevens · Abeel & Abeel v. Radcliff · Barry v. Equitable Life Assurance Society
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Nothing is more common, in preparing executory contracts for the sale of land, than to designate the premises by referring to them as the same described in some specified deed of conveyance, or as being the same of which some person named died seized, or by some other reference, whereby they can be readily ascertained and determined. Extraneous evidence so referred to, and any other evidence in connection with it, which may serve to identify and fix the limits of the land intended, is admissible and proper. There would appear to be no limit in that direction, except what is to be found in the general reference of the contract. For example, if a contract purports to embrace all the land owned by the vendor in a certain county, it would be admissible to prove any and all the land owned by him in that county. “In the case under consideration, the memorandum or receipt refers to no extrinsic fact by which it could be ascertained on which corner of Main and Pearl streets the land in controversy is situated. And to allow parol evidence to establish its locality, would be in violation of the statute, in allowing that to pass by parol which the statute says shall not so pass, and would open the door to all the mischiefs intended to be provided against by the statute.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Noland v. Haywood · Hogan v. Orr“Received from M. Holmes one hundred dollars, as part payment on a piece of property on the corner of Main and Pearl streets, city of Natchez, county of Adams, State of Mississippi.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hogan v. Orr
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.